WHICH TEXT IS RHYGYFARCH's LIFE of ST DAVID? Richard Sharpe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
5 WHICH TEXT IS RHYGYFARCH’S LIFE OF ST DAVID? Richard Sharpe Rhygyfarch ap Sulien (1056/7–1099) belonged to the family that controlled the clas of Llanbadarn in the eleventh century.1 His father Sulien was bishop of St Davids, and Rhygyfarch’s Life of St David has always been in some sense a well- known work. He identifies himself as the author in the concluding chapter, where he modestly asks his attentive readers to pray ‘for me, who am named Rhygyfarch and who rashly applied my inadequate talent to this subject’. This sentence is included in two versions of the text, however, and at different periods now one, now the other has been accorded precedence as representing most nearly the original work of the author. From the twelfth century the shorter version was quite widely available in manu- script; an abridged copy was first printed in 1516, and other printed editions of all or part of the work appeared in 1645, 1668, and 1691. The latest of these editions, in Anglia Sacra, edited by Henry Wharton (1664–1695), was the first to draw on the longer text preserved uniquely in a manuscript from Brecon priory which by the seventeenth century was bound with other items in the library assembled by the famous book-collector Sir Robert Cotton (1571–161), where it was shelved under the bust of the Roman Emperor Vespasian with the shelf-mark Vespasian A. xiv. Wharton had taken as his text the version in another of Sir Robert Cotton’s manuscripts, Vitellius E. vii, which was a copy of the Life as revised by Gerald of 1 Lloyd, ‘Bishop Sulien’, 1–6; J. Conway Davies, Episcopal Acts, , 49–506; Lapidge, ‘The Welsh- Latin poetry’, 68–106. The editions to which I shall mainly refer are Wade-Evans, ‘Rhygyvarch’s Life’, 1–7; Wade-Evans, VSBG; J.W. James, Rhigyfarch’s Life. The quotation is from § 67. In 1985 in Lapidge and Sharpe, Bibliography, 14, I regrettably cited James’s edition as the preferred text. I subsequently changed my mind and indicated this in Sharpe, A Handlist, 458. The present paper seeks to justify my view that the longer, Vespasian text used by Wade-Evans better represents Rhygyfarch’s work than the shorter text edited by James. The edition of 1516 is a rearrangement of John of Tynemouth’s Sanctilogium Angliae Walliae Scotiae et Hiberniae, augmented by the addition of a prologue and fifteen further Lives, printed by Wynkyn de Worde as Noua Legenda Anglie in 1516 (and also ed. Horstmann); the Life of St David is John’s abridgement, I.54–6. The other early editions are John Colgan [159–1658], Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae (1645), 45– (text of the Irish abridgement, some comparison made with the 1516 edition, and Colgan also knew of Gerald’s Life and John of Tynemouth’s); [The Bollandists], Acta Sanctorum, Mar. I (1668), 8–47 (text of the Digby family from an English manuscript then in Utrecht); and Henry Wharton, Anglia Sacra (1691), II.68–40 (text as rewritten by Gerald of Wales with selected variants from Vespasian A. xiv as ‘Ricemarus’), 645–7 (two lengthy additions from Vespasian A. xiv, §§ 0–1 and 54–8). Note that James (xxiii, xxxviii) mistakenly transfers 1645 as year of publication from Colgan’s Acta to the Bollandists’ Acta Sanctorum; at p. xxix he gives 166 as the date of publication of Colgan’s edition and mistakenly names Colgan’s expressed source, Bishop David Rothe, as Bishop Richard Routh. 90 Which text is Rhygyfarch’s ‘Life’ of St David? Wales towards the end of the twelfth century.4 Wharton realised that the Vespasian text was fuller, and he printed extracts from it to complement Gerald’s version. In 1853 the complete text from the Vespasian manuscript was put into print by William Jenkins Rees (1772–1855), a graduate of Wadham College, Oxford, who was rector of Cascob in Radnorshire from 1807 until his death and from 1820 also a prebendary of Christ’s College, Brecon.5 This long version of the Life was re- edited by Arthur Wade Wade-Evans (1875–1964) in 1913; Wade-Evans included an English translation with his edition of the Latin.6 The translation was reprinted by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1923, and the Latin text was reprinted with other Lives of Welsh saints from the Vespasian and other manu- scripts in Wade-Evans’s volume Vitae sanctorum Britanniae et genealogiae in 1944. Wade-Evans’s text remained the standard one until 1967, when John Williams James (1889–1983), chancellor of Bangor cathedral (1940–64), brought out a new edition, on which he had worked intermittently since 1930. James was the first to attempt a full investigation of the textual history, so that his edition carried a great deal more academic authority than the earlier editions. He argued that the Vespasian text was a reworking of the Life, made at Brecon around the year 1200 but incorporating some changes made a little earlier at St Davids around 1190. He therefore presented instead a text that relied largely on two groups of manuscripts, both of which bore witness to what he called ‘the basic mid twelfth-century Latin text’.7 In so doing he claimed to have recovered the text as revised at St Davids for Bishop Bernard, who held the see from 1115 to 1148. James was elusive on the subject of how far he thought this mid-twelfth-century text differed from the text as composed by Rhygy- farch, but he held that it was not possible to get back nearer to that original. James was conscious that he was going against what had been the general opinion, and he justified this by claiming that he followed the evidence: ‘If any long-cherished beliefs will be repelled by my conclusions, I can plead only a convinced acceptance of the evidence of the texts’.8 4 The version by Gerald of Wales has been printed by Brewer: Opera III.377–404. Brewer’s text was taken from Wharton (including his notes from ‘Ricemarus’) in the belief that the Vitellius manuscript had been destroyed in the Cotton fire of 1731. Brewer also compared the extracts from Gerald’s Life quoted by Archbishop James Ussher in Ecclesiarum Britannicarum Antiquitates. He seems to have assumed that Ussher’s quotations were textually independent, but Ussher was a regular user of Sir Robert Cotton’s library and may have quoted from the Vitellius manuscript. This was badly damaged in the fire.A second copy exists in British Library, MS Royal 13 C. I (s. xv), fols 171r–180v; the text here was augmented with miracle-stories extending as late as 1388, and the surviving copy was made in the 1450s for the antiquary William Worcestre. The Royal Library catalogue suggests that this may have been the copy used by Ussher; in his time the Royal manuscripts were kept at St James’s Palace, where he could have had access. 5 Rees, Lives, 117–44, with translation, 418–48. The edition was produced by Rees’s brother who ran the family’s printing business in Llandovery. 6 There is an account of Wade-Evans’s published works by Bachelléry, ‘Nécrologie A.W. Wade-Evans’, 165–8. 7 James, Rhigyfarch’s Life, xxx. 8 James, Rhigyfarch’s Life, vii. James’s edition appears not to have been widely reviewed, but those reviews that I have found accept his findings. So H.D. Emanuel (40–2) who makes a small number of literal corrections, welcomes James’s text as ‘a firm textual foundation for further studies’; J.E. Caerwyn Williams (183–5), in the first sentence of his review, says, ‘The value of this volume can scarcely be overstated’; and Thomas Jones (156–7) – who had excoriated the deficiences of Wade- Evans’s VSBG) – accepted all of James’s conclusions with the qualification that James’s assertion that the textual history could be traced no farther back than ‘ “two separate copies of an archetype in the possession of Bernard …”, although credible on a priori grounds, cannot be other than slightly dogmatic’ (Thomas Jones, ‘Review of James, Rhigyfarch’s Life’). Others have also endorsed James’s 91 Richard Sharpe While I do not dispute that James edited a mid-twelfth-century version of the text that enjoyed some medieval circulation in England and in Normandy, I shall argue that he erred in his judgement of the Vespasian text and that all his reasons for denying its priority were mistaken. When James’s assumptions and arguments are cleared away, it becomes evident that Vespasian has preserved for us something very close to Rhygyfarch’s text and that its deviations are minor errors of copying that can usually be put right. James’s account of previous scholarship on the text catalogues the stages by which more and more manuscripts were identified.9 From Wade-Evans’s 1913 edition he quotes a few telling points:10 In his Introduction (pp. xi–xiv), following Baring-Gould and Fisher (vol. ii, pp. 285–6), he calls the Vespasian text ‘the best … the fullest, and so far as I know quite unique … There are at least some slight omissions and alterations’, and ‘… mistakes’. The other Latin texts (excluding the versions of Giraldus Cambrensis and John of Tynemouth) are comprehensively styled ‘anonymous Norman-French versions of Rhigyfarch’s original work, some as old as, if not older than, the Vespasian MS.’ (p. xi); and he then ingenuously admits (p. xii), ‘and certainly, all these recensions, and others which are said to exist, have never been collated’.